Posted by Tim Maroney on Friday October 20, @04:22PMfrom the thank-bob-it's-over dept.

The OTO has won its copyright suit against Tony Naylor in England. The terms do not allow Naylor to appeal.

We are still waiting for more detailed information, but the above has been confirmed by an international officer of the OTO.

This case has been one of the more disputatious issues on the computer networks involving the OTO in many years. It has seen the suspension of a longtime IX° for unauthorized settlement talks with Naylor, predictions by P. R Koenig that the OTO would lose and become bankrupt, and enormous amounts of invective directed against the OTO – all for attempting to preserve its copyrights, which were assigned to it in Crowley's Last Will and Testament. This often misunderstood and misquoted document assigned the rights to John Symonds only as executor, not as owner, and instructed him in no uncertain terms to assign them to the OTO.

The resolution should also settle, at least for reasonable people, the issue of the legitimacy of the “Caliphate” OTO, which was revived by Grady McMurtry, who had been specifically named by Crowley as a potential successor.

The resolution should also settle, at least for reasonable people, the issue of the

legitimacy of the “Caliphate” OTO, which was revived by Grady McMurtry, who had

been specifically named by Crowley as a potential successor.

Unfortunately, many of the people who are most insistent on the O.T.O.'s 'illegitimacy' are remarkably unreasonable, and are unlikely to end their sniping because of this decision. I can understand, even sympathize with, folks who don't care for the O.T.O. as a pattern of Thelemic organization, but I have never understood why many of them name their own organizations as a “real” or “reformed” O.T.O. One would think they would try to distance themselves as much as possible from it. I guess the cachet of running a group that can claim to be Crowley's “heir” is too much for them to resist.

Well, let me be my usual “unreasonable” self briefly…what “legitimacy” does an Osirian court system bestow when judging the validity of a magickal current, system, or philosophy? If indeed the Caliphate OTO claims no source, existence, or reach beyond Malkuth, then, yep, it got 100% of what it wanted, and it would appear no one can gainsay this. I wish the Order great success in handling the karmic chimera they have worked so hard to obtain. I'm sure David Miscavige over at the Church of Scientology can sympathize. New OT III = De Arte Magica.

As the mad dash towards attempting to gain ecumenical “acceptance” of the EGC continues, it may be most ironic to witness the next 10, 20, or 50 years, as the Order attempts to distance itself ever more from a large portion of the literary legacy they now have full control over. If one can't change so much as the style of a letter, one can at least try to make the letter disappear entirely.

And of course, the Naylor suit's outcome says nothing about the COTO leadership's presumption to decide the legitimacy of A∴A∴ lineages. One can only wonder if, like with the stock market, we have entered into an era in which hubris can expand infinitely, or if there is a limit beyond which the bubble will pop.

>what “legitimacy” does an Osirian court system bestow when judging the validity of a\\
>magickal current, system, or philosophy?\\
\\
None whatsoever, nor has O.T.O. ever claimed so; however, such a court can decide whether a particular organization owns particular copyrights.\\
\\
>And of course, the Naylor suit's outcome says nothing about the COTO leadership's\\
>presumption to decide the legitimacy of A∴A∴ lineages.\\
\\
Notwithstanding unreliable testimony to the contrary, the O.T.O. has never made any such claim. I suspect that the O.H.O. has his opinions as to who is “A∴A∴” and who is not. I suspect you also have such opinions. Neither of you have ever impinged upon my right to hold my own opinions on the subject. Would you deny him his right to such an opinion because he is the O.H.O.?\\
\\

»And of course, the Naylor suit's outcome says »nothing about the COTO leadership's\\
»presumption to decide the legitimacy of A∴A∴ »lineages.\\
\\
>Notwithstanding unreliable testimony to the >contrary, the O.T.O. has never made any such >claim.\\
\\
Not in public statements, but re-read the praemonstrance in Equinox vol.4 #1 with regard to what it implies rather than states directly. The article in the last magical link was much more explicit. The Caliph does seem to believe that he can decide legitimacy, if only in the sense that he considers all 'lineages' illegitimate as such.\\
\\
> I suspect that the O.H.O. has his opinions as >to who is “A∴A∴” and who is not.\\
\\
They seem to be more than opinions, but he is reticent to discuss his views on the matter for (in my opinion) political reasons and also because at least one member of the governing triad of his A∴A∴ correctly feels that the issue of A∴A∴ legitimacy should be a spiritual matter.\\
\\
>I suspect you also have such opinions. Neither >of you have ever impinged upon my right to hold >my own opinions on the subject. Would you deny >him his right to such an opinion because he is >the O.H.O.?\\
\\
Only if he used that position to force people to acknowledge his A∴A∴ claims, or to block others from holding, expressing or practicing alternative views.\\
\\

I did not really respond to Patrick's or Nathan's issues on the A∴ A∴ legitimacy question, and I don't want to give the impression of brushing off this important issue.\\
\\
I nearly resigned from the OTO when I heard that HB had threatened Phyllis Seckler with expulsion from OTO if she did not cease to claim to represent A∴ A∴ However, this was so controversial that it seemed to be worth waiting until the dust settled. I also did not have adequate information to be sure that was what had really happened.\\
\\
As things developed, the threat was confirmed when Phyllis's letter to HB was made public, but very shortly after this time it was also confirmed that HB had dropped this insistence and agreed to keep matters of A∴ A∴ lineage out of the OTO process. Given that it was dropped, even though there was not really an adequate apology, it seems less important now.\\
\\
I can't ask that someone never make mistakes, only that they correct their mistakes, and in this case, that seems to be what has happened. As long as such behavior does not recur it seems to be a non-issue.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

Phyllis is a tough person, and one\\
of the most long-lived representatives of\\
the OTO and the A∴A∴\\
\\
Not to sound crass, but the whole story sounds like H.B. decided it was more judicious to wait for Phyllis to die first before attempting to take over the exclusive rights to the A∴A∴ as well as the OTO. Hence, no apology, and no guarantee that the issue won't come up again 10 years down the road.\\
\\
The question of Class A documents and Holy Books is wrapped up in this, of course. If the OTO doesn't clearly control or determine the legitimacy of the A∴A∴, then they can't fully claim control over Crowley's Class A documents, which are all “sacred texts” of the A∴A∴ as well.\\
\\
I wonder if there is enough hubris at the top of the Order for them to bring A∴A∴ “legitimacy” into the Osirian courts at some date not too far down the road?\\
\\
Patrick\\
\\

>I wonder if there is enough hubris at the top of the Order for them to bring A∴A∴ “legitimacy”\\
>into the Osirian courts at some date not too far down the road?\\
\\
What are “Osirian” courts? Do they differ from Isian courts or Horian courts in some way? Why not just say courts?\\
\\

Hi Patrick,\\
\\
Sorry that I spoke loosely. I have no patience myself with wars of spiritual legitimacy. That is a phenomenological matter that is entirely a matter of personal interpretation, and I know that it is quite possible to have significant transformative experiences within groups that have no Malkuthian “legitimacy” or even provably false claims of such “legitimacy.”\\
\\
Still, as far as actual organizations go, they do have an existence in the physical world, and there are degrees of defensibility and reproducibility in statements about matters in that world. Of course, we could well doubt the validity of basic concepts like property which underlie the intersubjectivity of judgments of the truth value of these statements; but on the level where you can say that a particular person owns a particular car, they have validity.\\
\\
I have myself been quite skeptical at various times about the OTO's claims of organizational continuity. There is this long hiatus period, and Grady was never properly selected, after all – he just stepped up to the plate. But then Crowley's and Germer's successions were pretty dubious affairs as well, and it's been a matter of consensus of the IX° all along. Grady was named by Crowley as a possible successor, he was a member of the highest governing body of the Order during Crowley's life, and he's not the only member of that group to become a director of the new corporation. No one else claiming the title of OTO has anything remotely like that level of organizational continuity. So on issues that are of the physical world, this question of continuation of the same organiztaion has meaning.\\
\\
I would take no less rigid exception than you, I think, to any claim that this organizational legitimacy translates into any kind of intrinsic spiritual superiority, either for any individual involved in one of the affected groups, or judging the groups as a whole. And I mean no slight to those other claimants of the title such as TOTO, CA-OTO, or OTOF, many of whom are made up of sincere spiritual people with much to offer to the life of the Thelemic community, and through whom my own life has been enriched.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

Patrick,\\
\\
My own feelings echo Mordecai's and Tim's. I would add that the Chthonic-Auranian OTO is a particularly interesting illustration of Mordecai's point about Thelemic organizations and the name OTO. I, too, have great sympathy with those who don't care for the OTO as a model of Thelemic organization; I particularly like the Cthonic-Auranian model, except for the name. If property is “Osirian,” and the founding documents of OTO assume the legitimacy of property to such a great degree, why not relegate the name OTO to the Aeon of Osiris and be done with it?\\
\\

I know that this is not the forum to open up debates on spiritual or organisational matters pertaining to the OTO, a subject on which I have no axe to grind. However, I must take exception to the above. I do not claim to know your motives but is this really the story that is being passed around by the Order in CA?

The truth is simply that, at a preliminary hearing in advance of the trial, the judge found in the OTO's favour concerning the claim that they bought such rights as were held by the official receiver in 1991. Indeed this finding actually invalidates the OTO's claim that AC left them copyrights as he was in no position so to do, these rights being the propoerty of the receiver and hence not transferrable by AC at the time of his death.

This in no way validates or invalidates the claim that OTO are or are not legitimate heirs to the poisoned chalice of Crowley's OTO. This was not at issue despite the attempts by both camps to make it so. The OTO changed their plea from one based on AC's will to the purchase in 1991. The judge found that this was a legitimate purchase. As to whether this gives any group the right to censor publications by another, this is still to be decided in the actual trial of which this was the preliminary hearing.

I am surprised that you, Tim, are using this forum to put forward a selective interpretation. My readings of your published work led me to believe you valued your reputation as an objective researcher in this area too highly.

I find it curious to be lectured on the subject of objectivity by someone who describes copyright enforcement as “censorship” and refers to “the poisoned chalice of Crowley's OTO.”\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

Tim,\\
\\
I was not lecturing - sorry that you are a little tender on this subject of objectivity.\\
\\
I referred to the OTO as a poisoned chalice in lieu of the problems it seems to cause.\\
\\
I refer to enforcement of copyrights as censorship when such are used to prevent others from publishing materials.\\
\\
Having watched the extensive debate on AiwasThelema, I now see your stance more clearly - did not mean to be overly critical, but I am actually surprised by your stance. I was a member of the OTO that you defend, and remain an ex-member with friendly relations.I do feel that this issue is important and made tawdry by the triumphalist tone that is emanating from Orpheus, yourself and others - I can see that it is in reaction to the glee felt by Koenig et al at the prospect of the order losing the case, but that does not make it any less petty-sounding to those outside the debate.\\
\\
TJ\\
\\

>So copyrights are okay as long as they aren't enforced?\\
\\
Copyrights are designed to ensure that an artist receives due recognition and reward from their artworks. No-one is disputing the rights of Crowley to be seen as the author of his works, rather it seems to me that they are being used in this instance to enforce a particular interpretation to the exclusion of others.\\
\\
It is my opinion that the best result of the case (when it does come to court, rather than this preliminary hearing) would be a ruling that decided that no-one is able to enforce copyrights. It does seem to me from speaking with persons involved on both sides that this will be the ultimate outcome and I fervently hope that this is so.\\
\\
TJ\\
\\

It certainly wouldn't bother me personally if all of Crowley's work ends up in public domain, but clearly he intended that the rights should go to the O.T.O. (now who that is is another debate entirely!).\\
\\

“It certainly wouldn't bother me personally if all of Crowley's work ends up in public domain, but clearly he intended that the rights should go to the O.T.O. (now who that is is another debate entirely!).”\\
\\
I think that would be the best. Crowley decided that John Symonds should be the arbiter of who was the genuine lineal descendants of OTO, and he has not found a group that fitted that description.\\
\\
Personally, I value the Caliphate's attempt to recreate the OTO as envisaged by Crowley, it is certainly an excellent object exercise in how such organisations can be run well, administratively, and they do initiate - I do not doubt that, having been part of the setup for many years. The current attempt to monopolise the Crowley idiom is unfortunate, and detracts from the brilliant work of individuals within and without the structure. Additionally, it is highly unfortunate that so many good, independent thinkers lose their objectivity when their club comes under fire from legitimate voices - this type of cultic behaviour is depressing and does not bode well for the future of the thelemic enterprise.\\
\\
TJ\\
\\

>I think that would be the best. Crowley decided that John Symonds should be the arbiter of who was the genuine lineal descendants of OTO, and he has not found a group that fitted that description. <\\
\\
Well, no. The will contains explicit instructions on who to assign them to, including an address, the address representing the Crowley OTO which was almost immediately to become the Germer OTO by consensus.\\
\\
>The current attempt to monopolise the Crowley idiom is unfortunate, and detracts from the brilliant work of individuals within and without the structure.<\\
\\
I see constant accusations of this, but I have not seen evidence that the OTO has tried to stop the functioning of any other Thelemic organization, although it has enforced its copyrights (and the recent unpleasantness over the A∴ A∴ ought to give one pause). It seems to me that the OTO threatens to become a Thelemic monopoly because of its success in attracting and keeping a large number of members, rather than because it is somehow shutting down the competition.\\
\\
>Additionally, it is highly unfortunate that so many good, independent thinkers lose their objectivity when their club comes under fire from legitimate voices - this type of cultic behaviour is depressing and does not bode well for the future of the thelemic enterprise. <\\
\\
Sorry, but if you're referring to me, I really object to that. I don't think the OTO currently has any good outside critics. They're lame flamers from Kelly to Koenig. I would not have been any closer to them when I myself was an outside critic than I am now. There's an identifiable type of rabid anti-religious propagandist, typified by Jack Chick, the Anti-Masons, and the like: wild accusations, casual self-contradiction, refusal to present evidence for most accusations, innocent documents presented as evidence of tremendous evil, instant adoption of any grudge anyone may have against the group no matter how self-indicting or fraudulent, obsessive harping on trivial matters, and a tone of frothy hysteria and irrationality that makes the group under attack seem the most depraved example of all the evil in the world. It's a kind of “critical fundamentalism.”\\
\\
I think it's a shame. Outside critics can be useful. I've tried to deal with some of these people in reasonable terms to try to help them improve themselves as critics, but so far I see no improvement.\\
\\
I strongly reject any claim that I engage in cultic behavior on behalf of the OTO, and I would appreciate an apology. I have my criticisms of the group, some of them are highly pointed, many of them upset people in authority, and I express them much more frequently than I express my concerns about other critics. I sometimes get from the OTO an acknowledgment of at least some of my concerns, and action taken to try to set them to rights; while I wait in vain for any concession from the outside critics under any circumstances.\\
\\
Perhaps one reason we seem to have no good outside critics at present is that it is not necessary to be outside the OTO to be a public critic of it. Many constructive critics see that insiders are usually more effective. As for whether I would be able to be as critical as I am here if I were in another Thelemic group, well, I suppose that's a hypothetical, but I wouldn't bet on my survival in a group run by any of the destructive critics.\\
\\
You have expressed in your message a more balanced view than I have seen from the current crop, though you still veer into a counterproductive rhetorical excess at times. If you turn out to rise above the pack of outside critics, more power to you in that role. If you are working to create change for the better, I am on your side.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

»The current attempt to monopolise the Crowley idiom is unfortunate, and detracts from the brilliant work of individuals within and without the structure.«\\
\\
>I see constant accusations of this, but I have not seen evidence that the OTO has tried to stop the functioning of any other Thelemic organization, although it has enforced its copyrights (and the recent unpleasantness over the A∴ A∴ ought to give one pause). It seems to me that the OTO threatens to become a Thelemic monopoly because of its success in attracting and keeping a large number of members, rather than because it is somehow shutting down the competition. <\\
\\
I agree with your judgment concerning the AA issue, and personally do not feel comfortable accepting that it is over. Soror Meral has not received an apology as such, and the decision to withold seems one of expediency rather than a change in direction. Other persons have raised this issue - I remember Jake Stratton-Kent arguing a similar point at a Thelemic symposium in Oxford a few years ago, though I do not recall the details. I agree that the success of OTO in attracting large numbers is the keystone of this assertion, coupled with the constant refusal to accept other legitimate groups. I believe that a more open structure that actively encouraged dialogue with other groups, and recognised other thelemites would remove much of the ammunition that feeds this feeling. It is reasonable for small independent groups to feel uncomfortable when they see a larger group claiming sole legitimacy and this argument being accepted by many. Yet this does not validate the claim of deliberate monopoly. I question the decision to enforce copyrights - to what end is this done?\\
\\
»Additionally, it is highly unfortunate that so many good, independent thinkers lose their objectivity when their club comes under fire from legitimate voices - this type of cultic behaviour is depressing and does not bode well for the future of the thelemic enterprise. «\\
\\
>Sorry, but if you're referring to me, I really object to that. I don't think the OTO currently has any good outside critics. They're lame flamers from Kelly to Koenig. I would not have been any closer to them when I myself was an outside critic than I am now. There's an identifiable type of rabid anti-religious propagandist, typified by Jack Chick, the Anti-Masons, and the like: wild accusations, casual self-contradiction, refusal to present evidence for most accusations, innocent documents presented as evidence of tremendous evil, instant adoption of any grudge anyone may have against the group no matter how self-indicting or fraudulent, obsessive harping on trivial matters, and a tone of frothy hysteria and irrationality that makes the group under attack seem the most depraved example of all the evil in the world. It's a kind of “critical fundamentalism.” <\\
\\
Personally, I believe Koenig has raised more pertinent objections to the way the order operates than anyone within it's ranks. Your constantly likening him to Chick and the rabid anti-masons of the previous century are precisely the type of behaviour that I was referring to.\\
\\
>I think it's a shame. Outside critics can be useful. I've tried to deal with some of these people in reasonable terms to try to help them improve themselves as critics, but so far I see no improvement. <\\
\\
Do you not think this is just a tad patronising?\\
\\
>I strongly reject any claim that I engage in cultic behavior on behalf of the OTO, and I would appreciate an apology.<\\
\\
I think that the above shows how I feel on this. Additionally, your electing to act as cheerleader on the issue of the hearing seems to me to indicate something similar. However in an attempt to engage in constructive dialogue, I apologise without reservation for implying that you were acting in a “cultic” manner. I would be grateful for your reasoning behind the decision to post the article in the way that you did, but your decision on this does not affect my apology.\\
\\
>I have my criticisms of the group, some of them are highly pointed, many of them upset people in authority, and I express them much more frequently than I express my concerns about other critics. I sometimes get from the OTO an acknowledgment of at least some of my concerns, and action taken to try to set them to rights; while I wait in vain for any concession from the outside critics under any circumstances. <\\
\\
It is for this reason alone that I chose to correspond with you. As a member in good standing for many years, I was always pleased to see that persons like yourself and nigris were raising issues that many other members did not feel would be listened to. Can you not see then, that when someone who is identified as a member with a history of objectivity and integrity releases what amounts to press releases in a public forum, one is drawn to ask questions?\\
\\
>You have expressed in your message a more balanced view than I have seen from the current crop, though you still veer into a counterproductive rhetorical excess at times. If you turn out to rise above the pack of outside critics, more power to you in that role. If you are working to create change for the better, I am on your side. <\\
\\
Yes, my rhetoric is counterproductive - I can see that and will try to temper my responses if you would like to continue this.\\
\\
Regards\\
TJ\\
\\

>It is reasonable for small independent groups to feel uncomfortable when they see a larger group\\
>claiming sole legitimacy\\
\\
Sole legitimacy? In what sense? Certainly O.T.O. claims to be the only legitimate O.T.O., but I've never seen any claim that O.T.O. is the only legitimate Thelemic group. If you can produce any example of such I'd be both shocked and appalled. Such an attitude on the part of O.T.O. would make me more than just “uncomfortable”.\\
\\

There has been some doubt expressed by the Naylor faction and its allies as to the OTO “victory” in the case. They have stated that infringement of the copyrights has yet to be decided, and since this assertion has not been challenged by OTO sources, I believe it is true.

The conclusion drawn by the Naylor/Koenig side of the dispute is that this is a premature announcement of victory by the OTO. As far as I can tell, both sides are accurate in their accounts, and the apparent difference in their conclusions comes from their different emphases in the case. The OTO is primarily concerned with establishing its ownership of the copyrights, and considers any particular case of infringement less important than its ability to pursue cases of infringement in general. The Naylor side, however, is primarily concerned with keeping the money it has made through publication of Crowley's writing, and it is correct that there has not been a judgment so far that requires it to surrender any of that money. The two sides define winning differently, and that accounts for equally sincere insistences from both sides that the case has or has not been won.

(As should have been demonstrated by the numerous predictions of ignominious OTO defeat during this trial, guessing the outcome of cases in the courts is often a sucker's game. However, I am going to go out on a limb here, and note that once ownership of copyright is decided, the bulk of an infringement case has also been decided. There may be some technical reason why the copyright is not enforceable in this case, and so the outcome on the infringment question can't be said to be assured, but it's pretty clear at this point that the odds on the infringement question have shifted significantly to the OTO side.)

93\\
\\
I think it pertinant to point out that OTO has not issued any formal announcement on the case at all, except to state internally that we received a favorable judgement in court. This internal information has been published here without any official sanction.\\
\\
Unlike our detractors, we prefer to wait until the court itself issues its judgement in writing (which should be soon) so that people can read it for themselves and see exactly what happened.\\
\\
So Tim, your statement that “both sides are accurate in their accounts” is in error. OTO has not released an account, accurate or otherwise. That's up to the court. When the court proceedings are available, then we'll comment.\\
\\
Personally Tim, I'm very surprised at your drawing conclusions on such flimsy evidence. It's not your normal style.\\
\\
93 93/93\\
\\

93\\
\\
Well, Rodney's post says what it says quite clearly and accurately, and it is in keeping with my understanding of the situation.\\
\\
Tim's “confirmation” from an anonymous international officer of OTO seems much more nebulous. Did the officer in question have a chance to review Tim's summary and approve its accuracy and suitability for publication?\\
\\
I know that Bill Heidrick has offered some news in the thelema93-l eGroup, but it is much closer to Rodney's conservative assessment “we received a favorable judgement,” rather than the more sweeping statements in Tim's initial item.\\
\\
93 93/93\\
\\

Speaking to the issue of sources:\\
\\
[Editor's note: Tim went on to reveal his sources for this story. This has been removed, along with the subsequent discussion, out of concern for the confidentiality of some of the sources concerned. We apologize for the intrusion.]\\
\\

} I figured the OTO had won after Koening posted Naylor and Synnond's statement\\
\\
[22-10-2000 , 21:30:24] {Eleggua} exactly pantos, that was such a giveaway\\
\\
End of transcript.\\
\\
Please contrast this with the statement that the only comments had been internal, and that those comments had only referred to a favorable judgment, not to winning the case. Like all the accounts I have received from OTO sources, it clearly states that the case has been won; it does not register simply one favorable judgment in the ongoing resolution process.\\
\\
Here is the other public statement from an OTO officer I have seen on this. It is from the Grand Tribunal Secretary.\\
\\
From: jalano93@aol.com\\
Reply-To: AiwazThelema@egroups.com\\
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:52:26 -0000\\
To: AiwazThelema@egroups.com\\
Subject: [AiwazThelema] Re: OTO selling archives on E-Bay?\\
\\
93 Ruthanne,\\
\\
>Who else do you know\\
> who needs the money so bad that they would sell something like\\
>that?\\
\\
I hate to break it to you all but, the OTO WON the Symond/Naylor case\\
yesterday!\\
\\
93, 93/93\\
\\
Jim\\
\\
End of message.\\
\\
Once again, a statement is made that the case has been won, not simply that there has been a favorable development; and the statement is public, not private.\\
\\
I also have received a number of private (internal) statements from OTO officers. They all state that the case has been won, in terms such as “It's true, OTO won.” and “We won yesterday and no appeal.” and “we indeed have won the UK case.” and “OTO has prevailed in the UK lawsuit”.\\
\\
It appears, however, that there is starting to be some backpedaling from the original statements about victory made by OTO officers. Whether this is simply a late-found discretion or an actual retreat from the position has yet to be determined.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\
\\

93\\
\\
Neither “Eleggua's” brief conversation, nor Jim's rather taunting note to Ruthanne look anything like an official OTO statement to me.\\
\\
The internal news that I have received uniformly indicates that while the principal court decision is in favor of OTO and unlikely to suffer any sort of reversal, there is a lot of detail left to resolve.\\
\\
I appreciate the wide interest in this matter, but I think that patience will serve better than rumor, in determining the actual nature and consequences of a legal verdict that will soon enter the public record.\\
\\
93 93/93\\
\\

The issue raised by Rodney was not whether there has been an official public announcement.\\
\\
It is whether there have been any accounts from the OTO (which means its officers), whether those accounts have been public or private, and whether they have stated victory in the overall case or more cautiously discussed a single step in an ongoing process.\\
\\
I believe I have adequately demonstrated that there were such statements, that they have been both public and private, and that they have repeatedly stated victory outright.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

Tim, I'm amazed that I actually have to spell this out to you, but what I say in conversation as a private individual is a great deal different from an official statement made by OTO as an Order. Just because I'm an OTO officer doesn't mean that everything I say is a pronouncement from above - my opinion is mine and mine alone, and doesn't depend on or represent anyone but myself.\\
\\
When I make a statement as an OTO officer I normally try to make sure that I refer to myself in an official capacity. Otherwise it's just me.\\
\\
As regards the “back-pedalling” stuff - what?!?!? In legal parlance “received a favorable judgement” is the long-winded way of saying “we won”. I was trying to be accurate in my mail to this board, whereas I was using the vernacular in my quoted IRC conversation.\\
\\
Are we clear on this now? I really hope so…\\
\\

This message will be the last word from me on this subissue.\\
\\
It was stated by Br. Orpheus in his first message in this thread that “This internal information has been published here without any official sanction. ” In fact, my article was based on the public revelation from the Grand Tribunal Secretary, shown above. Private sources were consulted only for confirmation. The claim that I improperly disclosed internal information of the OTO in writing this article is false. The actual public revelation was by officers of the OTO.\\
\\
It was further stated that “OTO has not released an account, accurate or otherwise.” This is not correct, in that statements were made publicly by officers. These statements were not said to be official, but they were unequivocal public statements of victory. The claim that there is not an account coming from the OTO is false.\\
\\
It was further stated, in a direct personal attack, that “Personally Tim, I'm very surprised at your drawing conclusions on such flimsy evidence.” The person attacking me for drawing conclusions from inadequate evidence had already stated those selfsame conclusions himself in public. This compounds the error of personal attack and adds the error of hypocrisy. Br. Orpheus is castigating me for making the same statement that he himself had made.\\
\\
Finally, on the question of “back-pedaling,” the back-pedaling in question seems clear enough. People who were willing to state in public that the OTO had won the case a week ago are not willing to make the same statement now, and in fact are trying to distance themselves from that position. If that is not back-pedaling, then I do not know what is.\\
\\
I see no reason to continue a discussion in which false and defamatory statements are being made about me without apology or concern for the facts. This is not compatible with my idea of fraternal relations, and I have no desire to further compound the problem, since the person defaming me has no intention of retracting or apologizing. My integrity was questioned without good cause and I have already demonstrated that.\\
\\
If not for the personal attack – if, for instance, there had been a simple clarification that the OTO had not yet made an official announcement on the case – then there would have been no reason for this subthread.\\
\\
–\\
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org\\
\\

proud and royal
the current vectors into the vulture
golden solar visage

is what we are all behind
we assend toward it
who are the guard dogs of
the impossible

a hawk eye opens
over the desolation
in the face of forever

intertwinded in the serpent
out of the chaos glyph comes
the dream of the eternal city
through which is seen the sun
like an angel appearing
with a bloody feather
like a whisper that comes on

like a whore shrouded in scarlet light
we are at the bottem of the hell cycle
she can do anything she wants
she can change to eve or lilith
she will put on the constellation masks
she will change the spider sign
in the lit up temples she awaits
on the old black stone
with insect headress on
scarob brow
aeons appear
night comes
to an end

death rattels
in the initiation
this the first and last
departure down the unknown
transformation, magick shining
in the word, everything is secret
sacred spit on the red wall of all
everything is hidden in the sky

the flood of blood
and sperm moments rushing
her lovely ass moon
the forbidden to conjer
to power all lusty visions
reflect her sensual smile

the intoxication she brings
that labrinthian feeling
staggering the imagination
the explosion of dead angels
the marvalous spell a thousand suns
they dance they become lost in evil
and beyond justification
chaos all over erotica
mists on the gutter
the ancient night rains
images of her

the little abyss
opens, the starsponge vision
the moon was gone
whores and gods
of time go by
sleeping in the
desert
pyrimids rise
flames lick the sky
whipping proud, unfurling
the infinity carved dragon
extention of sex sixty sex passion
rose flames riding atop the skull
holy hole flames of petels flaped
back to reveal the flames of death
and rainbow flames of banners
over the narcotic city of empty mirrors

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.

“As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?” – Aleister Crowley
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
[ home | search ]